Concordance of HIV transmission risk factors elucidated using viral diversification rate and phylogenetic clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although HIV sequence clustering is routinely used to identify subpopulations experiencing elevated transmission, it over-simplifies transmission dynamics and is sensitive to methodology. Complementarily, viral diversification rates can be used to approximate historical transmission rates. Here, we investigated the concordance and sensitivity of HIV transmission risk factors identified by phylogenetic clustering, viral diversification rate, changes in viral diversification rate and a combined approach. METHODOLOGY: Viral sequences from 9848 people living with HIV in British Columbia, Canada, sampled between 1996 and February 2019, were used to infer phylogenetic trees, from which clusters were identified and viral diversification rates of each tip were calculated. Factors associated with heightened transmission risk were compared across models of cluster membership, viral diversification rate, changes in diversification rate, and viral diversification rate among clusters. RESULTS: Viruses within larger clusters had higher diversification rates and lower changes in diversification rate than those within smaller clusters; however, rates within individual clusters, independent of size, varied widely. Risk factors for both cluster membership and elevated viral diversification rate included being male, young, a resident of health authority E, previous injection drug use, previous hepatitis C virus infection or a high recent viral load. In a sensitivity analysis, models based on cluster membership had wider confidence intervals and lower concordance of significant effects than viral diversification rate for lower sampling rates. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Viral diversification rate complements phylogenetic clustering, offering a means of evaluating transmission dynamics to guide provision of treatment and prevention services. LAY SUMMARY: Understanding HIV transmission dynamics within clusters can help prioritize public health resource allocation. We compared socio-demographic and clinical risk factors associated with phylogenetic cluster membership and viral diversification rate, a historical branching rate, in order to assess their relative concordance and sampling sensitivity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".